On Wed, 2021-02-03 at 00:27 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 09:58:24AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-02-02 at 11:26 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: [...] > > > > > > Actually in this case I don't understand why _once, especially > > > based on the comment. Would ratelimited not be better? So we > > > can see if it happens repeatedly? Even better would be if we > > > could see when it next gave a valid status after an invalid one. > > > > The reason was that we're trying to catch and kill paths to the > > status where the locality is incorrect. If you do some operation > > that finds an incorrect path the likelihood is you'll exercise it > > more than once, but all we need to identify it is the call trace > > from a single access. The symptom the user space process sees is a > > TPM timeout, but we still have the in-kernel trace to tell us why. > > I don't agree with this reasoning. This warn could spun off also from > chip not following TCG spec. If it doesn't follow this basic part of the spec, the chip is unusable by us anyway because we need the status to proceed with command handling. > The patch does provide the status code, which is always useful > information. In the wrong locality that will be bus not connected, so likely 0xff. The most useful thing to know is what path triggered the condition because the most likely cause is coding error. James
